Rahat Ali vs State Of H.P

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

This petition has been preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 47 of 2020, dated 11.2.2020, registered under Sections 420, 120 B, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC in Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P.

Status report stands filed. According to the status report, on 11.2.2020, one Gurpeet Singh, R/o Village Kola, Tehsil Ranbirsinghpura, District Jammu had submitted a written application, stating therein that they had been cheated by Pooja Chaudhary and Rahat Ali Jafari (petitioner) on the pretext of providing job and he had also given details of 6 persons, who had paid lacks of rupees to accused persons. Finding prima facie commission of cognizable and non bailable offence, Pooja Chaudhary and Rahat Ali (petitioner) were arrested on the same day and during investigation room in the hotel, occupied by Polja Chaudhary, was searched and from the suitcase of Pooja Chaudhary, appointment letters issued to Gurpreet Singh, Mohan Lal Dube and Raghav Hira, purported to have been issued by All India Radio Akahvani Bhawan Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001, were recovered. These letters were having stamps of Parsar Bharti Akashvani Bhawan, New Delhi and Director General Akashvani Bhawan New Delhi. Photocopies of certificates of some persons, including complainant, were also found in the suitcase of Pooja Chaudhary. Petitioner Rahat Ali was found to be Chairman of Tucsi Foundation and Tucsi Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd., registered with Registrar of Companies, Jammu.

As per status report, on the basis of disclosure statement of Pooja Chaudhary, during her custody, Rs.1,77,000/- were recovered from the drawer of her bed, situated at Avtar Camp Ramgarh (Samba) Jammu and she further disclosed that remaining amount, through a person Jitender Singh alias Lucky, had been transferred by her to the account of Mohd. Hameed and the appointment letters were issued by that Mohd. Hameed only. On 7.3.2020 Mohd. Hameed was apprehended and arrested from Punchh (J&K).

According to Police Pooja Chaudhary had disclosed transfer of about Rs.15.5 lacs to the account of Hameed. Jitinder Singh had endorsed the version of Pooja Chaudhary and had disclosed his Current and Saving Account numbers, through which amounts of Rs.8.5 laccs and Rs.7 lacs, respectively were transferred to the account of Hameed and his version was also corroborated on perusal of account statements received from J&K Bank Jammu.

As per status report, during his custody, co-accused Mohd. Hameed, through his brother Javed Iqbal, had produced Rs.1,15,000/-, which were concealed by him in his house and he had further disclosed that appointment letters, given by him to Pooja Chaudhary, were signed by him and stamps thereon, were also put by him and stamps were burnt by him.

According to status report, Pooja Chaudhary and Mohd. Hameed had received Rs.42,50,000/- in total, from different persons, on the pretext of providing job, out of which Rs.16,00,000/- were returned by Pooja Chaudhary to complainant party.

It is submitted by learned Deputy Advocate General that petitioner Rahat Ali was conducting counseling programme/meetings of the persons who were allured by Mohd Hameed and Pooja Chaudhary to provide job in Government Departments in Himachal Pradesh and he has been found involved in the conspiracy of commission of offence with Mohd. Hameed and Pooja Chaudhary under Section 120B IPC. Challan has been presented in the Court of ACJM on 6.4.2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rahat Ali was not knowing the receipt of huge amount by Mohd. Hameed and Pooja Chaudhary on the pretext of providing job and further that petitioner was performing his job assigned to him by them and he was engaged by the main accused to conduct meetings of aspirants of job. He has also submitted that petitioner is also ready to furnish local surety and to abide by conditions as deemed fit by the Court to be imposed upon him.

On consideration of status report, submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, record produced before me and the appointment letters issued to different persons by Mohd. Hameed, I am of the considered opinion that case of the petitioner is entirely different from the case of Mohd. Hameed and Pooja Chaudhary. It is also noticeable that this Court has enlarged Pooja Chaudhary on bail vide judgment dated 15.6.2020, keeping in view her age, marital status as well as woman-hood.

In view of role attributed to the petitioner, I find that he can be treated differently to the main accused and no fruitful purpose is going to be served by continuing him in judicial custody at this stage.

Therefore, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case registered under Sections 420, 120 B, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC in Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, one of them, as undertaken by the petitioner, shall be local surety, to the satisfaction of trial Court, within three weeks from today, subject to following conditions:-

(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) that he shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial;

(iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected;

(v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner;

(vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail;

(vii) that he shall keep on informing about the change in address, landline number and/or mobile number, if any, for his availability to Police and/or during trial;

(viii) he shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

In case the petitioner violates any conditions imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.

Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.

It is made clear that enlargement of petitioner on bail shall not entitle the co-accused to release them on bail on sole ground of parity, but their cases are to be considered and decided, if any application is preferred by them, on its own merit and status report of the prosecution filed therein.

Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application.

The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, he may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.